[Media Caucus] Speaker nomination concern from Victor

[Ronald Koven]

Dear Victor --

This kind of blackballing of mainstream press figures is hard to take. I
don't know the gentleman in question. He was nominated by Jacques
Briquemont, on behalf of EBU, which is interesting to note since the EBU is
made up of public and state TV systems. Jacques' other suggestions were all
from other public systems, and I presume he included O Globo in an effort
to be balanced by nominating someone from private TV. 

I also presume he included the O Globo man because he is also scheduled to
be at the World Electronic Media Forum in Geneva.

If "civil society" is only about people who come from the margins, rather
than the mainstream, that is a gross distortion  of world reality. I for
one have tried as much as possible to be accomodating of what are, in the
final analysis, relatively marginal concerns. This is because I strongly
believe in freedom of expression -- the right of everyone to get their say.

But too many people seem to think that "civil society" is nothing but
advocates and militants of groups opposed to anything and everything that
they perceive as being related to the Establishment. There is much more to
world civil society than the advocacy groups that have worked so hard to
take control of the WSIS process. Wanting to exclude a major voice like O
Globo is not a display of an inclusive or democratic spirit. Quite the
opposite.

The community media movement wants respect and support from the mainstream.
Fine. Why not? But when it then turns around and tries to suggest that it
is the end-all and be-all of the world of media, is it surprising that
there should be resistance to such displays of militant exclusiveness ?

The Media Caucus can only have legitimacy if it makes an honest effort to
reflect world media as a whole. If it means only to reflect a movement that
at this point barely exists, relative to the whole, then very serious
questions are raised.

Despite of, or maybe even because of, the tensions within the Caucus, it
was very different from the other caucuses -- most of which have been under
the thumb of a very partisan, politicized world vision. But if there is no
place at all in the WSIS civil society process for the vast majority of
journalists and journalistic enterprises in the press world, then the Media
Caucus is reduced to being just another marginal interest trying to lobby
itself into disproportionate power that does not reflect its real weight in
the world.

The whole summit risks becoming marginal and of limited interest if it is
so little reflective of the real world. If we can't maintain a small corner
of the process that does reflect realities, then why bother? If there is
nobody in the Caucus left to voice mainstream concerns, then its entire
legitimacy as a spokesman for the media will quickly be tarnished.

I know, Victor, that you most probably won't appreciate what I've said
above. But it seems to me that a reality check is salutary. Because a press
enterprise is successful is no reason to try to silence it in the summit
process. If you were to succeed in that, you would only have succeeded in
delegitimizing the whole process in the eyes of the world press. Surely,
you can't believe that's in your ultimate interest. Democracy can't be a
one-way street open to just one set of sensitivities.

Best regards, Rony Koven